The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on April 9, rejected Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Liquor Policy Scam. Presiding over the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the legality of ED’s actions, reinforcing the integrity of the arrest.
Key Points from the Delhi HC Verdict
Electoral Bonds Ownership: A Non-Judicial Matter
Justice Sharma reiterated that the ownership of electoral bonds holds no relevance in the judicial proceedings concerning this case. The court clarified that the identification of purchasers and their contributions does not influence the case’s outcome.
Document Access and Prior Testimonies
Addressing concerns regarding document availability and prior testimonies, the court emphasized that access to documents is warranted at the trial’s appropriate juncture, not at the present stage. Kejriwal’s assertions regarding ED’s omission of earlier statements were dismissed, with the court reaffirming its stance.
Equal Treatment Under the Law
Justice Sharma underscored that investigative agencies cannot be swayed by individuals’ convenience, reiterating the principle of impartial investigation. The court rejected any notion of special treatment for public figures, emphasizing equal application of the law.
Timeliness of Arrest
The court highlighted that Kejriwal’s arrest occurred within the bounds of legal procedure, unrelated to the timing of elections. Refuting claims of political motive, Justice Sharma emphasized adherence to legal protocols in evaluating the arrest.
Judicial Neutrality
Emphasizing the judiciary’s impartiality, Justice Sharma clarified that the case does not constitute a political dispute but rather a legal matter between Kejriwal and the ED. The court reiterated its commitment to adjudicating solely on legal merits.
Substantial Evidence
The court acknowledged the ED’s presentation of substantial evidence implicating funds allocated for Goa elections. Citing testimonies and material evidence, Justice Sharma affirmed the completion of the evidentiary chain regarding election-related finances.
In response to the ruling, AAP leader and Delhi Minister Saurabh Bhardwaj expressed dissent, labeling the case as a political conspiracy. Despite the verdict, Bhardwaj vowed to pursue legal recourse, signaling intentions to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
